[In keeping with my claim that "the New York Times is the opiate of the people," and that its columnists are essentially dealers in said opiate, I continue with Mr. Nicholas Kristof.]
In two consecutive columns this week, Mr. Nicholas Kristof upbraids the Catholic Church, particularly Pope Benedict XVI, for failing to support the distribution and use of condoms throughout Christendom as a response to AIDS. In The Pope and Aids (May 8), Kristof blames the Church for "hundreds of thousands" of AIDS deaths; in Catholic Devotion, and Doubts (May 10), Kristof warns that if the Church remains doctrinally intransigent, a "Re-Reformation" is imminent.
One might first ask why Kristof is so obsessed with Catholic reform. Is it due to his own personal love of the papacy; of the magesterium; of Christ and the Holy Twelve? Or is he obsessed with reforming the Church because such reforms serve political ends: That by redefining Church doctrine, the once stalwart Church will become just another marginalized political entity, superfluous in total, because its teachings conform to the whim and whine of the people?
That Kristof is obsessed is clear: four columns in a month about the Church. And then there's the ditty he wrote last summer (and it really was a ditty) about the foolishness of the Virgin Birth; that those who believe it are intellectually, well, deficient.
It is so comforting to find those who denounce papal infallibility, and yet espouse personal infallibility. For surely Kristof believes that he is positively inerrant in his statements about the Church, its teachings and its future; and the role it has played in killing people with the AIDS virus for not distributing condoms. Surely one does not think that Kristof attaches a disclaimer to his op-eds with anything resembling a statement like, "You know, I might be wrong about this. I don't REALLY know much about Catholicism"?
No such disclaimer exists because Kristof thinks he is infallible about papal fallibility.
Check out this statement that concludes his May 8 essay:
"So if Pope Benedict wants to ease human suffering, then there's one simple step he could take that would save vast numbers of lives. He could encourage the use of condoms, if not for contraception, then at least to fight AIDS. That choice between obeying tradition and saving lives is stark, and let's all pray he'll make the courageous choice."
Add this statement:
"... the Vatican's ban on condoms has cost many hundreds of thousands of lives from AIDS."
Then add this (Kristof is allegedly quoting a 17-year-old Catholic girl, HIV-positive):
"Because of their age, they should be wiser," she said of the cardinals, adding: "I resent that they don't think of people like me, teenagers with AIDS or H.I.V."
From these it is pretty clear we can conclude one thing: The Catholic Church is evil. Not glorious, not compassionate, not merciful, not the repository of Christian truth. No, it is evil: It's all the Church's fault.
Yes, Kristof makes a passing remark or two about the many good things the Church has done. But his praise is muttered under his breath. It is not sung from the rooftops.
Sadly, really sadly, Kristof lacks the fortitude of mind to delve into WHY the Catholic Church opposes condoms. Its refusal to budge on this issue has nothing to do with some tangential teaching in the Church. Its refusal is rooted in the very core of what the Church believes about Christ, His marriage and intercourse with His Bride (the Church), and what it means to be a human being. Kristof turns a blind eye to the Church's ancient (the most ancient of all) moral teachings on abstinence; on behaving in a sexually healthy way (which would mean not being promiscuous and NOT performing anal intercourse, which is the MAIN means for transmitting the virus for heterosexuals AND homosexuals, from what I've been learning).
Does anyone really think that the Church is complicit in AIDS deaths when it has repeatedly said, for millennia, that sex should ONLY occur between a man and woman, married, as virgins?
(Kristof might as well blame mothers and fathers for having children! For surely these parents knew that this world was full of disease, violence and tragedy before they chose to have offspring. How dare they have children when they knew bad things would most likely happen to them! Parents are to blame for suffering! For if there were no kids, there'd be less suffering!)
The absurdity of Kristof is demonstrable: he's blaming the wrong thing, and he's taking the high moral ground against a Church that has done nothing wrong. It's easy to do when you don't want people to have to face the consequences of the choices they make.
Ultimately Kristof has a low, cynical view, not of the Church, but of humanity. Kristof believes that people are so animalistic, they can neither control themselves, nor can they take responsibility for their actions. The Church, believing that sexual intercourse is neither a sport nor a pasttime, believes that people are so noble that they indeed can practice sexuality in a holy, wondrous manner without resorting to latex and chemicals and toxins and machines and celluloid and narcotics to ensure sexual bliss. (In fact, the Church so adores sexual intercourse It considers it a sacrament. Progressives the world over scoff at such high-falutin language.)
Finally, I am reminded of the communists who thought their system would succeed, "IF ONLY" capitalism would get the hell out of their way. Similarly, I am reminded of gay rights advocates who insist that they will be happy "IF ONLY" the homophobics would get the hell out of their way. The same could be said of the feminists, or the progressives: there is always someone preventing them from finding happiness and peace. Kristof appears to be saying, ultimately, that the AIDS crisis would be better served IF ONLY the Roman Catholic Church would be a better Church.
In fact, Kristof would have us believe that the world would be a better place "IF ONLY" the Church was a bit more like Mr. Kristof.
Yes indeed, Mr. Kristof, it is time for a "Re-Reformation", whatever that means.
Perhaps you might want to "re-reform" your opinions, or something even more fundamental.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, Pulitzer Prize
No comments:
Post a Comment